Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

A huge political statement came from the University of Chicago earlier this week. The dean reaffirmed the university's policies on free speech, condemning "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces", which many view as an attack on political correctness. This hits close to home for me because I'm actually an alumnus of one of schools that shut out a very high-profile conservative from speaking at one of their commencements; students, faculty and alumni protested against it, and I find such actions as an assault on free speech.

Here is the statement from the University of Chicago:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority—building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

make total destroy
19,645

make total destroy 19,645

"Free speech" does not mean you can say whatever you want unopposed. It doesn't mean people aren't allowed to disagree with you. It doesn't mean people of a particular community--in this case, a college campus--have to give you a platform. What "free speech" means is the state cannot impede your political speech. It doesn't save you from protestors, to whom "free speech" also applies. It's a two-way street.

we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

"Yeah Nazism is just a tiny bit controversial, but let's just hear them out!" - liberal being dragged into a concentration camp by his shirt collar.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Clem Fandango
4,750

Clem Fandango 4,750

Presumably any 'trigger warnings' you see at a university would only apply to depictions of rape or other extreme violence. Universities happily put swear warnings where course material uses the word 'f*ck' so that seems like a reasonable policy.

and lol at 'safe space.' It's ironic because the rich have stifled academia and the media so that nobody dares criticise them. It is infamously difficult for Communists to get into grad school.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

Uh, not exactly. For example, the ACLU has, on many occasions, defended the rights of controversial groups such as the KKK and neo-Nazi groups. The right of free speech, at least in the United States, also means that some of these groups are entitled to file for protest permits, thus providing law enforcement during such demonstrations. On many occasions, the aforementioned groups have peacefully held rallies in public, even against public scrutiny during those events.

This is a bit circular, so not sure what you're getting at here. The right to disagree with someone is free speech.

It doesn't mean people of a particular community--in this case, a college campus--have to give you a platform.

No, you're right, they don't, but the free expression of ideas and exploring the substance of an argument are pillars of a democracy, and therefore educational institutions should strive to reflect such values. Not only that, It's good public policy for educational institutions to do so.

"Yeah Nazism is just a tiny bit controversial, but let's just hear them out!" - liberal being dragged into a concentration camp by his shirt collar.

stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg

Sure, it's hyperbole, but you get my point, right?

Edited August 28, 2016 by X S

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

make total destroy
19,645

make total destroy 19,645

For example, the ACLU has, on many occasions, defended the rights of controversial groups such as the KKK and neo-Nazi groups. The right of free speech, at least in the United States, also means that some of these groups are entitled to file for protest permits, thus providing law enforcement during such demonstrations.

Right, and people have a "right" to turn up to oppose their demonstrations and shut them down. Sure, they can say want and try to have their march, but their First Amendment right isn't going to protect them from a boot to the skull.

On many occasions, the aforementioned groups have peacefully held rallies in public, even against public scrutiny during those events.

I wouldn't care if they were playing bongos in the park, they're f*cking fascists.

This is a bit circular, so not sure what you're getting at here. The right to disagree with someone is free speech.

Right, hence "[free speech] doesn't mean people aren't allowed to disagree with you". Just because you make a political statement does not mean it will be without consequence, it does not mean people won't reject it, nor does it mean people will have to associate with you or tolerate you.

No, you're right, they don't, but the free expression of ideas and exploring the substance of an argument are pillars of a democracy, and therefore educational institutions should strive to reflect such values. Not only that, It's good public policy for educational institutions to do so.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend someone like, say, Ann Coulter, or Milo Alt-RightTokenGayGuy is worth listening to.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

Right, hence "[free speech] doesn't mean people aren't allowed to disagree with you". Just because you make a political statement does not mean it will be without consequence, it does not mean people won't reject it, nor does it mean people will have to associate with you or tolerate you.

The tolerance bit is what I take issue with. I believe that upholding tolerance of all opinions, regardless of their substance, is more important than stifling any particular individual or group that just so happens to voice a contrary opinion.

Hate speech, on the other hand, well that's a different issue. If a KKK rally was attempting to incite violence, then they have no rights or protection under the law. At least in the US, hate speech is defined as speech that might incite violence or immediate harm AKA "fighting words".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Clem Fandango
4,750

Clem Fandango 4,750

The tolerance bit is what I take issue with. I believe that upholding tolerance of all opinions, regardless of their substance, is more important than stifling any particular individual or group that just so happens to voice a contrary opinion.

Neo-nazis are not intellectuals who need to be taken seriously on the off chance racism might be true or whatever, they're a social issue born out of poverty, social antagonisms and toxic masculinity. Likewise, Conservatism is an apology for power relations in society and adapts itself to oppose whatever concessions people are fighting for that day. If you met Ben Sharpio or some sh*t you'd be surprised to see that he is not an intellectual at all, and isn't interested in hearing your views on the flat tax, rather he'd view himself as a TV personality or a public relations figure.

Free speech is a concession earned by the labour movement, it isn't some sacred principle that the state believes in. It also doesn't really exist in practice, hence pigs will form a ring around the KKK but will actively assault leftist protesters. The state just agreed to reign in their aggression in response to upheaval.

The Electoral Commission banned several slogans of a political party including "Western civilisation, British culture, free speech" and "Halt immigration, tackle extremism, defend freedom" because these were deemed "offensive".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

Serious question, but who's to say that a neo-Nazi can't be an intellectual? By those standards, or at least any standard on the basis of someone's intelligence, it would give whack jobs like Ted Kazczynski - a man with an IQ of 167 - a greater podium from which to communicate, rather than a poor commoner with little education seeking greater social justice.

Likewise, Conservatism is an apology for power relations in society and adapts itself to oppose whatever concessions people are fighting for that day.

Conversely, those same free speech rights are also extended to the Left. If you go back to the NY Times article I posted, it mentions that the University of Chicago allowed the Communist Party president, William Z. Foster, to speak on campus, despite fierce criticism in 1932. The University did not have to do so, but it did so in the name of free speech.

hence pigs will form a ring around the KKK but will actively assault leftist protesters.

Just echoing some of what Stu said above, but there's a difference between free speech protesting and all-out rioting.

Edited August 28, 2016 by X S

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Fonz
3,133

Fonz 3,133

Well, calls for genocide and white supremacy are inherently violent. Language can be alienating and violent too; the KKK doesn't need to actually start lynching black people again for us to know they're nutcases and need to be stopped. Freedom as a concept only makes sense socially and things which seek to take away the freedom of other people cannot be seriously defended under the banner of free speech. Hate speech is not free speech since it's an attack on freedom. There's also the point that the institution of private property is necessarily violent. There's not much of a peaceful approach to class struggle, which is an inevitable fact of class society.

There's a bit of a difference between calling for social control over production and calling for racial supremacy and ethnic cleansing. Dog whistles like "X culture, Y civilization" are just an alt-right expression of very old ideas. Since scientific racism is completely discredited, the far-right populism of today uses the language of a clash of civilizations and cultures or whatever, but it's still plain to see that this is the same old fascistic garbage under new clothes. It's still about that old creepy collectivism, demonization of minorities and the creation of "national enemies" to divert attention from class and other issues within society. I should add that Jack Buckby is a member of Liberty GB, a far-right party, and a former BNP member.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Black_MiD

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

Freedom as a concept only makes sense socially and things which seek to take away the freedom of other people cannot be seriously defended under the banner of free speech. Hate speech is not free speech since it's an attack on freedom.

This is where I disagree, MiD. The very fundamental principle behind free speech is that every man or woman should have the right to speak freely without fear. When you begin to arbitrarily deem what is socially worthy of such rights, you inadvertently encroach upon the rights of all speech. So even though the speech you're referring to may be socially unacceptable or offensive, it is worth defending to be heard at the benefit of stimulating greater, and hopefully more intellectual, opposition against it. By refusing to challenge the former, you are, in effect, just sweeping it under the carpet, and I believe that causes far more resentment and anger among those who hold such views.

Personally, I would never condone flag burning, and I find it offensive, but I also wouldn't condemn or disagree with anyone's right to do so. Hell, I'd even pay the attorney's fees of someone arrested for it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Fonz
3,133

Fonz 3,133

This is where I disagree, MiD. The very fundamental principle behind free speech is that every man or woman should have the right to speak freely without fear. When you begin to arbitrarily deem what is socially worthy of such rights, you inadvertently encroach upon the rights of all speech. So even though the speech you're referring to may be socially unacceptable or offensive, it is worth defending to be heard at the benefit of stimulating greater, and hopefully more intellectual, opposition against it. By refusing to challenge the former, you are, in effect, just sweeping it under the carpet, and I believe that causes far more resentment and anger among those who hold such views.

It's not really arbitrary, though. The whole point of white supremacist organizations is that they believe in a social order built on the murder and enslavement of minorities and are actively working to make it happen. There isn't really any content to it. The problem with the 'marketplace of ideas' approach is that it ignores the very real physical threat that racism, sexism, homophobia etc. etc. pose to real people and instead treats them as just regular ideas that can be discussed and defeated by reason. It also doesn't take into account how these things ascend, which has been invariably by force and not by convincing people of their intellectual merit. For example, if you ask a random person off the street who Hitler was, they'll certainly know. If you ask somebody who Oswald Mosley was, he'll probably be much lesser known. The reason for that is that the Battle of Cable Street was won, by force, by the anti-fascists, even though that march was allowed out of a misguided notion of free speech. The struggle against these things has never been won with arguments.

By refusing to challenge the former, you are, in effect, just sweeping it under the carpet, and I believe that causes far more resentment and anger among those who hold such views.

This is an interesting point, but I'd say that, even though everyone knows that things like scientific racism are nonsense, totalitarians and bigots aren't really interested in the scientific validity of their claims. The idea that there are different "races" among humans is scientifically bunk, but racists still exist, they still choose to believe in garbage theories and they still act on them. When it comes to fascism in particular, though, I don't think it can be eliminated it without eliminating class society and the nationalism that gave rise to it, so it continues to creep up now and again in times of political crisis or social unrest. It's just been swept under the rug up until now.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

It's not really arbitrary, though. The whole point of white supremacist organizations is that they believe in a social order built on the murder and enslavement of minorities and are actively working to make it happen. There isn't really any content to it. The problem with the 'marketplace of ideas' approach is that it ignores the very real physical threat that racism, sexism, homophobia etc. etc. pose to real people and instead treats them as just regular ideas that can be discussed and defeated by reason.

With regards to the US legal definition of hate speech, this certainly applies. It's essentially any sort of language that attempts to incite violence or immediate harm. So I think there's some confusion with my position that all speech, regardless to how deplorable it may be, is deemed worthy of defending, if and only it is not an attempt to physically coerce or infringe upon the rights of others.

My support of the University of Chicago for voicing such beliefs is only the extent that students be exposed to things they may disagree with, even when it may be incredibly offensive. We only learn by challenging and exploring those issues.

Edited August 28, 2016 by X S

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem 18,740

sivispacem 18,740

I think the intent of the speaker has as much importance as their actual words. If someone stops short of directly inciting violence but it is commonly known that's their aspiration or goal, then it's still an implicit incitement of violence.

There's also the question of whether the university environment actually offers people the opportunity to properly critique the views of people they let speak- letting people speak imparts a sense of authority rather than fostering the idea that these individuals are peers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

There's also the question of whether the university environment actually offers people the opportunity to properly critique the views of people they let speak- letting people speak imparts a sense of authority rather than fostering the idea that these individuals are peers.

Just speaking from personal experience, my university invited Condoleezza Rice to speak at a commencement ceremony, only to later rescind under pressure from student body and faculty. Even Obama made mention of it when he became the commencement speaker earlier this year stating:

And if participation means voting, and it means compromise, and organizing and advocacy, it also means listening to those who don’t agree with you. I know a couple years ago, folks on this campus got upset that Condoleezza Rice was supposed to speak at a commencement... Now, I don't think it's a secret that I disagree with many of the foreign policies of Dr. Rice and the previous administration, but the notion that this community or the country would be better served by not hearing from a former Secretary of State, or shutting out what she had to say, I believe that’s misguided. I don't think that's how democracy works best, when we're not even willing to listen to each other.

So this wasn't some case of a speaker known for inciting violence, hatred or bigotry. She was an African-American woman who just so happened to work for the Bush administration.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Clem Fandango
4,750

Clem Fandango 4,750

With regards to the US legal definition of hate speech, this certainly applies. It's essentially any sort of language that attempts to incite violence or immediate harm.

Saying "we should cut healthcare spending" or "we should bomb Iran" insights immediate violence and harm. It's arbitrary what is considered unacceptable speech.

My support of the University of Chicago for voicing such beliefs is only the extent that students be exposed to things they may disagree with, even when it may be incredibly offensive. We only learn by challenging and exploring those issues.

Yeah well we don't live in a marketplace of ideas. Politics in our society is not some Great Debate sh*t, it's a struggle for power between groups with different interests. There is no 'we' to challenge and explore Nazism (lol) we all know what it entails because we watched fascists come to power less than a hundred years ago, and again, they aren't motivated by a misreading of facts: it's an aesthetic response to society, and far-right movements are an inherent part of the middle class under Capitalism. It's a social phenomenon, not an earnest set of suggestions on how to better the world.

Serious question, but who's to say that a neo-Nazi can't be an intellectual?

They're just throwing bottles at the wall mate. They're street gangs first and foremost, I'm not going to discuss some theoretical leather patches Nazi that's out having formal debates.

By those standards, or at least any standard on the basis of someone's intelligence, it would give whack jobs like Ted Kazczynski - a man with an IQ of 167 - a greater podium from which to communicate, rather than a poor commoner with little education seeking greater social justice.

You're not getting it. It's not that they're stupid it's that they are not making serious points. Saying we'll challenge rightists to a raging public debate and then they'll agree with us makes about us much sense as saying we'll challenge drug addicts to a debate and convince them that shooting smack is a bad idea. They didn't start shooting smack because someone made them a reasoned argument, it's a form of social behaviour.

Conversely, those same free speech rights are also extended to the Left. If you go back to the NY Times article I posted, it mentions that the University of Chicago allowed the Communist Party president, William Z. Foster, to speak on campus, despite fierce criticism in 1932. The University did not have to do so, but it did so in the name of free speech.

I don't understand your point. Communism is spooky af and totally a great idea so of course we want to hear from Communists.

Just echoing some of what Stu said above, but there's a difference between free speech protesting and all-out rioting.

Not really (although again I was talking about centre-left wimpy hippie affairs). Why is smashing a shop window any worse than holding up traffic? Holding up traffic can cost millions of dollars and nobody gets hurt in either instance, so surely the former is worse. It seems to me that smashing sh*t is just a more striking and effective form of protest and isn't normalised the way simple marching is. This is why the state responds with violence.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

Saying "we should healthcare spending" or "we should bomb Iran" insights immediate violence and harm. It's arbitrary what is considered unacceptable speech.

That's not the definition of inciting immediate violence. Are you claiming that arbitrary speech is unacceptable? If it's arbitrary, then how do you properly define it?

I'm trying to stay on topic here, so I'm not going to get into an argument on the merits of fascism, so please excuse me for not addressing your other points.

I don't understand your point. Communism is spooky af and totally a great idea so of course we want to hear from Communists.

Well, naturally, much of the discourse related to free speech in American legal studies will reference not only fascism, but also the "threat" of communism because its success has largely been the result of force and coercion, rather than by persuasion.

Not really (although again I was talking about centre-left wimpy hippie affairs). Why is smashing a shop window any worse than holding up traffic? Holding up traffic can cost millions of dollars and nobody gets hurt in either instance, so surely the former is worse. It seems to me that smashing sh*t is just a more striking and effective form of protest and isn't normalised the way simple marching is. This is why the state responds with violence.

Breaking windows is so archaic. Just become a 1337 h4x0r, m8. Chicks dig nerds these days.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Prepsi
94

Prepsi 94

Honestly, the people complaining about political correctness are mostly just upper middle class white people who are mad they can't call people the "n" and "f" words anymore, at least from what I've seen. It doesn't help that most of the movements against PC on campuses are also in bed with neo nazis ala 4chan's /pol/

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Twang.
1,830

Twang. 1,830

Political correctness is when you alter your views to better fit with your chosen party. For instance, even as a liberal, I don't support gun control. That's politically incorrect. I've always supported gay rights, so my aversion to using the word fa**ot is not a case of political correctness.

If, for instance, several Republican congressmen 180'd on the subject of universal healthcare because that suddenly became uncouth among their party...that would be political correctness.

Of course, that's not how it's used in our discourse. At best it's just used as justification for spouting edgy sh*t on the internet. At worst it's dog-whistling for reactionary anti-progressivism.

It's also part of the 'victim culture,' I think. It gives an individual their indignation fix while pretending to be oppressed when someone calls them an asshole for being an asshole.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jehannum
1,475

Jehannum 1,475

The pejorative term "political correctness" should be dropped by those who disparage it because the term is deniable and vague, not to mention tendentious. They should use "language control" instead, which describes where the real sin is, and which does not single any particular movement but rather a technique used by all those who want to control thought.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,707

Eutyphro 2,707

Political correctness is more specifically language control by the establishment. It is closely related to censorship and propaganda. And the fact that the left wing on this forum pretends political correctness to not be existant I find amazing. It should be apparant to them that the fact that you can't bring up issues of social class in mainstream US media is a type of political correctness. Political correctness harms any movement that is not the establishment view.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,707

Eutyphro 2,707

What's your point? That the way the establishment controls public opinion and manufactures consent for "bullets, truncheons, prisons, gallows, electric chairs, and deportations" as you call it is irrelevant? You should try making an actual point.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

make total destroy
19,645

make total destroy 19,645

That the way the establishment controls public opinion and manufactures consent for "bullets, truncheons, prisons, gallows, electric chairs, and deportations" as you call it is irrelevant?

No, that isn't necessarily irrelevant, as the media primarily serves the interests of the ruling class anyway, it's just not what anyone means when they talk about "political correctness". Like, at all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Triple Vacuum Seal
831

Triple Vacuum Seal 831

fact that the left wing on this forum pretends political correctness to not be existant I find amazing.

You're painting with a broad brush at best. "Political correctness" and really subservience in general has little do with where one falls on the political spectrum. It's just devolved into an empty buzzword with the rare exception of it being properly contextualized.

I offend right wingers all the time with my lack of political correctness.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,707

Eutyphro 2,707

it's just not what anyone means when they talk about "political correctness". Like, at all.

I think that is exactly what is meant. I just find it bizarre when someone posts 'political correctness doesn't exist'. Apart from that, though I'm saying I think it is strange many on the left say such things, obviously I'm left wing myself..

"Political correctness" and really subservience in general has little do with where one falls on the political spectrum.